Incorrect: "Global Integrity data measure corruption in countries."
Global Integrity does not measure corruption directly in any of our work. Rather than attempt to measure the "cancer" of corruption, Global Integrity country assessments rate the quality of the "medicine" being applied to fight it: good governance and anti-corruption mechanisms. Countries that score well on the Integrity Indicators can and do still experience damaging, high-profile cases of corruption and abuses of power. Scandals can signal that certain anti-corruption mechanisms are indeed performing as they should by bringing corrupt behavior into public view.
Incorrect: "Global Integrity staff score countries on various anti-corruption/good governance mechanisms."
Not exactly. Global Integrity never directly assigns scores to a country, region, province, or municipality that we cover. Those scores are simply the aggregation of dozens of more specific indicators that have been researched by our in-country countributors. In other words, the higher-level ratings (often published in the form of "scorecards") are merely the sum of their parts: the disaggregated Integrity Indicator scores, which are produced by teams of local experts.
Incorrect: "Global Integrity is a good governance advocacy organization."
Not precisely; we are an information provider and not a lobbying organization. While we target advocates as a key audience for our work, we do not engage in any direct lobbying campaigns.
Incorrect: "Global Integrity scores countries on Western ideals of good governance."
Not at all. A close reading of our indicators and their unique scoring criteria shows that we allow for a myriad of alternative, informal anti-corruption practices that may be unique to a particular country or region. While we believe that the basic principles of transparency and accountability are universal, we recognize that they can manifest themselves through a variety of culturally- and historically-unique mechanisms that may differ from one country to the next.
